This is
a civil rights case filed by Plaintiff Ezra Jones, under the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Mr. Jones proceeds
in forma pauperis and pro se. He is
currently incarcerated in the Randall L. Williams
Correctional Facility of the Arkansas Department of
Correction. At the time at issue in this case, he was
incarcerated at the Washington County Detention Center
("WCDC"). The case is before the Court on a Motion
to Dismiss (Doc. 66) filed by Separate Defendant Landon
Harris, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

I.
BACKGROUND

While
Mr. Jones was incarcerated at the WCDC, he alleges that: (1)
he was not provided with a diet in keeping with his religious
beliefs; (2) he was not provided with nutritious and
well-balanced meals; (3) he was not treated with dignity and
respect and was routinely spoken to in a derogatory manner;
and (4) he was denied vegetarian meals.

With
respect to Defendant Harris, who is a nurse practitioner
employed by the entity that provides medical services to
inmates of the WCDC, the original Complaint (Doc. 1) filed on
September 12, 2016, names Mr. Harris, but does not include
any specific factual allegations concerning him. A Supplement
to the Complaint (Doc. 8) was filed on October 5, 2016, which
included more facts in support of Mr. Jones's various
causes of action, but still failed to explain why Mr. Harris
was being sued. A second Supplement (Doc. 62) was filed on
February 10, 2017. In the second Supplement, Mr. Jones
"apologize[d] to the Court for confusing the Defense
Lawyers, " and then stated:

There is only (1) alegation [sic] against
"Landon[.]" He interfered with a Request clearlly
[sic] addressed to RELIGIOUS DIET [and] responded[, ]
"You will need to go through religeous [sic] services,
" and closed the request, creating further delay.

There is no way to quantify exactly how much his actions
attributed to delays[;] it is[, ] however[, ] clear that the
actions of Landon were wrong.

Id. at1.

II.
LEGAL STANDARD

Rule
8(a) contains the general pleading rules and requires a
complaint to present "a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief."
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). "In order to meet this standard,
and survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), 'a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its
face.'" Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Ashcroft v.
Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)).

"The
plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the
pleading stage that success on the merits is more than a
'sheer possibility.'" Braden, 588 F.3d
at 594 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). The
standard does "not impose a probability requirement at
the pleading stage; it simply calls for enough fact to raise
a reasonable expectation, " or reasonable inference,
that the "defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also
Stone v. Harry,364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 2004)
(finding that while pro se complaints are liberally
construed, they must still allege sufficient facts to support
the claims).

III.
DISCUSSION

Section
1983 provides a federal cause of action for the deprivation,
under color of law, of a citizen's "rights,
privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and
laws" of the United States. In order to state a claim
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the
defendant acted under color of state law and that he violated
a right secured by the Constitution. West v. Atkins,487 U.S. 42 (1988); Dunham v. Wadley,195 F.3d 1007,
1009 (8th Cir. 1999). The deprivation must be intentional;
mere negligence will not suffice to state a claim for
deprivation of a constitutional right under § 1983.
Daniels v. Williams,474 U.S. 327 (1986);
Davidson v. Cannon,474 U.S. 344 (1986).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Here,
reading Mr. Jones&#39;s allegations against Mr. Harris as
generously as possible, they do not state a plausible claim
for relief. At most, Mr. Jones contends that Mr. Harris
negligently responded to his request concerning a
"religious diet" by directing him to resubmit the
request to a different department within the WCDC. Even if
this act was negligent, negligence does not rise to the level
of conduct that states a claim under &sect; 1983. See,
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.